{"id":6,"date":"2026-03-13T22:42:50","date_gmt":"2026-03-13T22:42:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/harmonic-framework.com\/?page_id=6"},"modified":"2026-04-08T15:41:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T20:41:24","slug":"methodologies","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/harmonic-framework.com\/es\/methodologies\/","title":{"rendered":"Methodologies"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Methodologies<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Harmonic Design synthesizes four frameworks into a unified whole. Each retains its full set of rules, role definitions, and validation approach \u2014 but HD governs how they connect, how they reinforce each other, and how structural decisions at one layer propagate through all others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/svg>\n<\/div>\n

Volatility-Based Decomposition (VBD)<\/a><\/h2>\n

The backend structural model.<\/strong> Organize components around anticipated change, not current functionality.<\/p>\n

VBD identifies four volatility axes \u2014 functional, non-functional, cross-cutting, and environmental \u2014 and assigns each to a dedicated component role. Managers coordinate workflow. Engines execute business rules. Resource Accessors isolate external dependencies. Utilities handle cross-cutting concerns. Communication rules enforce clean boundaries: state flows downward, results propagate upward, horizontal coordination is prohibited.<\/p>\n

Read the full methodology \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n<\/svg>\n<\/div>\n

Experience-Based Decomposition (EBD)<\/a><\/h2>\n

The interface structural model.<\/strong> Structure interfaces around human intent, not screens or components.<\/p>\n

EBD establishes three behavioral tiers \u2014 Experiences (complete user journeys), Flows (goal-directed sequences), and Interactions (atomic user actions) \u2014 plus shared Utilities. The same volatility axes apply: non-functional change is isolated in the Experience, functional change in Flows and Interactions, cross-cutting in Utilities, and environmental concerns are handled at the Experience boundary. The Experience is the exclusive communicator with the backend.<\/p>\n

Read the full methodology \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n<\/svg>\n<\/div>\n

Boundary-Driven Testing (BDT)<\/a><\/h2>\n

The test strategy map.<\/strong> Testing difficulty is architectural evidence, not a testing problem.<\/p>\n

BDT maps the test spiral to the structural models defined by VBD and EBD. Each tier has a natural test profile: Engines and Flows at unit scope, seams between tiers at integration scope, complete journeys at E2E scope. Mock placement follows from structural position \u2014 you mock at boundaries because boundaries are the architecturally significant seams.<\/p>\n

Read the full methodology \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n<\/svg>\n<\/div>\n

Project Design (PD)<\/a><\/h2>\n

The project planning model.<\/strong> You cannot estimate what you have not designed.<\/p>\n

Project Design derives the project plan from the architectural decomposition. Components become work packages. Dependencies become the project network. The critical path determines duration. Float analysis quantifies risk. The result is not one plan but a set of viable options with quantified trade-offs \u2014 enabling rational decision-making rather than guesswork.<\/p>\n

Read the full methodology \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

How They Connect<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The four frameworks are structurally isomorphic. The same volatility axes drive decomposition at every layer. The same communication rules apply. The same validation mechanism \u2014 trace a core scenario through the hierarchy \u2014 works in all four. A structural insight at one layer informs all layers simultaneously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n